Friday, March 20, 2009

Think you know so much???

Don't you just hate people who think they know EVERYTHING???I had one of those as a customer recently... A prescription had been faxed to us from the doctor for some antibiotic eye drops. The directions said "Apply to affected area 4 times a day" and it said to dispense seven. Most people might think, "OK, the affected area is the eye" Ahhhh! Not necessarily so! Many podiatrists prescribe eye or ear drops to be applied to ingrown toenails. This doctor was not a podiatrist, however, so we jotted a note asking for clarification, and faxed it back to the doctor.Fast forward a few hours. The patient (actually the patient's mom, I think - it MIGHT be the same little gal that thinks she's not a minor just because she had a baby) shows up. We tell her we need to clarify the prescription, we faxed the doctor, but haven't heard back yet. What's wrong with it, she asks, and we tell her about the unclear directions."Well, DUUHH! They're eye drops! What are you, stupid?" I'm in shock that anyone would speak to me this way, but I try to remain professional. "No, we're not stupid, we know what they're usually used for, but in our experience, that's not always the case." "My daughter has pinkeye! DUH! They're EYE drops!" "Yes, they are, usually, and we had no way of knowing about pinkeye from this fax..." She interrupts me and goes on about how stupid I am...I hand the fax to her and say "If you are going to treat us that way, you can go somewhere else. Goodbye."Hopefully, sometime in the not-so-distant future, I hope she tries to treat her toenail by putting eye drops in her eye... It would serve the little brat right to get gangrene...

Since PC has been in this kind of position before, this is how she would have handled it. Bear in mind, I am not excusing the horrible response that the customer chose to use and seeing her walk out the door might have been the best thing that happened that day:I'd have seen Apply to affected area qid. Bad sig: First off, I'd have interviewed the patient/representative. Chances are pretty good that they would have know the area of application. "hey, we just wanna make sure, eye drops can and are used in eyes, ears and other places, is Mary using these in her eyes?". If the answer is yes, then the sig goes as such: Apply in affected eys(s) 4 times daily as instructed. THEN, during counselling, I would tell patient that usual dose is 1-2 drops and to use the drops for a full day after the eye is clear or til the dr told her in the office.THIS I feel comfortable with. Patient is served, Pharmacist is happy and the stupid person leaves blissfully happy.

Yes, I do find people who think they know everything annoying especially when combined with a condescending attitude. It's taken me a long time to break myself of that (the know it all condescention) but it still sneaks through sometimes. Uh oh, here it comes. I think your headline is mislabeled. I think what bothered you is that she thought you knew nothing--that's even a little harder on the old ego than know it alls.

Why,oh wny,can't people as obnoxious as this simply be left out in the fields to expire on a cold winter's night? Why am I walking the same streets as someone who wants her 14 year old baby-mama daughter given chewable prenatal tablets and gets hissy when I don't have them in stock?

I just found your blog and am now a follower but I have a comment about this entry. Why do you need to know what the patients diagnosis is or where the infected area is? Chances are that the patient knows what the infected area is and their doctor probably already gave them directions. Also, the doctor makes the dianosis and prescribes the medication. The pharmacist fills the medication prescribed by the doctor to treat the condition diagnosed by, again, the doctor. Why would the pharmasist need to know the diagnosis? I have never had a pharmasist ask me my diagnosis or why my doctor is prescribing my medication. I fill 10 medications a month and I have never been asked that and each rx I fill; I have already gotten instructions from my doctor. At NO time should my pharmasist ask me my diagnosis or not fill cuz the Dr. wasn't specific re: the infected area that the patient is sure to know. Yes, that girl had a rotten attitude but I'm sorry - you were definetly in the wrong. If the Dr. thought you needed to know the missing information; he would have given it to you in the first place. Your a pharmacist; your job is to fill rx's prescribed by dr's. Not worry about the diagnosis or area to be treated. Honestly; I'm POSITIVE the patient KNEW where the infected area was. Just my opinion as a follower and a ongoing, long-time pharmacy customer. Em.

When it's you that might have to justify in court why shit went sour with that patient, you gotta clarify the order prior to administration. No matter what health care profession, no matter how seemingly trivial. Come on people - deal with the red tape, it keeps us safe. People WILL use their PO analgesics in their anus. You don't want that.

really? you would have to justify why, in court, under oath, you didnt ask the person whether the eye drops were being used in the eye or on the toes?

Personally, i think that you over reacted. She was prescribed eye drops. Ill admit, i didnt know they could be used on toes. but then i dont have pharmaceutical training. Neither by the sounds of it did your customer. I think you over reacted.

I expect eye drops to go in the eye, and i have been prescribed them for my eye before.

Ill assume by this logic, that if i shove a big mac up my butt and it gets all stuck and infected that im well within my rights to sue.

My point is, this customer was not incredibly stupid. She was being very practical. You on the other hand this time over reacted. If you had given me that response, i would have been talking to your manager.

You can argue all you want, but like someone else said, I have never heard of a pharmacist checking up what my script is for.

You wouldnt be liable if you provide what the doctor ordered. Only if there was reasonable doubt that the script is fake.

I'd say both parties over-reacted for sure. And I'm not here to explain who was wrong or dumb.

Merely pointing out that;a] They're labeled as "Eye drops" (even if eye drops can be prescribed for various other ailments)b] It says apply to affected area

Then wouldn't you automatically know that they were for an eye problem? If b] HAD to be true, and the only other variable stated they were eyedrops, then wouldn't that mean the affected area was her eye?

Given, she didn't have to make fun of you for not automatically knowing her daughter had pink-eye. Nor did you have to kick her out of the store and post about how dumb she was.

Which, funny enough is what another website did to this post. It's how I got here.

I just wanted to congratulate you on being used by a major entertainment site as a subject-matter example of people who feel the need to be condescending jerks about "the stupid" and then prove to be not so bright themselves. Congrats!

Ok, ummm in your post you admit that the prescribing doctor was not a podiatrist - so why would you need further clarification that the eye drops were not for the patient's feet??? If that's the only alternative use of eyedrops, what is left for there to clarify?? The customer wasn't right to call you stupid - I think you knew what the eyedrops were for - you were just being cantankerous and difficult because it makes you feel good about yourself to make another person angry and gives you material for your ill premised blog. This woman's frustrations were completely justified, and I'm pretty sure everyone else who commented before me has already proved you're the idiot.

Before you inevitably take this post down out of embarrassment, I would just like to say congratulations for clearly identifying yourself as a self-righteous disgrace to the pharmacy profession.

Common sense has to prevail at some point... If they are EYE drops and the doctor is not a podiatrist then guess what? Chances are they are to be administered to the EYES. Better still is the chance that the customer knew where to apply the drops, whether it was the eyes or the feet or wherever...

Her reaction may not have been commendable but then again if a pharmacist delayed my child from receiving her medication in order to investigate something so staggeringly obvious I would be pissed too...

Sorry, I have to side with the pharmacist here. If the order is unclear, the medicine has multiple uses, and the patient is not educated properly on use of the med, then they go home and misuse it, the pharmacist can be held liable. If the directions were vague, it's the doctor's fault, not the pharmacist. If you honestly think there is no teenage mother who would take a medicine home and put it in the wrong orifice simply because there were no directions, you haven't dealt with enough patients. Once he explained the need to clarify the order, she really should have just laughed it off and said, "No, I know where it needs to go, don't worry." Being verbally abusive is not warranted in this situation, and if you're joining in because a Cracked columnist said you should, then you are doing exactly what you are accusing this person of doing. You are trying to make yourself sound smarter by running someone else down. In this case, someone with a legitimate reason to be miffed.

What is wrong with you guys? Yes, she might indeed have to justify it in court because we all have a Constitutional right to sue for anything whatsoever. So, if you stick a Big Mac up your ass, yes, you might sue McDonalds for withholding proper instructions on use.

Now, the court might not accept the suit, but while it's ongoing your company still has to put forward the time and legal fees to defend itself, though it may get a favorable ruling at the end. However, then you have to somehow collect your lost legal fees from somebody who probably wouldn't have sued you if they had that money to begin with. Either way, that could take a long time while the company is leaking money.

Therefore, the blogger was absolutely right to get clarification. And if you read about some of the stupid accidents people have taking meds due to vague instructions, you would probably agree.

First you don't know how many conditions the customer has besides the one they're being treated for. Suppose they put it on their eczema instead? You don't know what their command of the language is. If you're using the word "apply" wrong, are they going to figure it out?

Second, to both the customer and pharmacist, the wording looks like an error. You don't know what the customer's intelligence is. The problem is not so much one can't figure out the right answer, the problems is you're not imaginative enough to come up with all the wrong answers a random customer might.

I agree, common sense should prevail, and customers and doctors should be using it, too. She did the common sense thing in checking back with the doctor.

As for telling the customer to go elsewhere, well, that wasn't the right thing from a business standpoint, but when you're being called an idiot, loudly and repeatedly in public you take the lesser evil. If the alternatives are assault and battery charges and/or a shouting match, resulting in much more lost business from surrounding customers, it's best to send the ex-customer on her way. Let her pay money to call somebody else an idiot. Maybe there's some Internet porn for her aimed at just that fetish.

It says "affected area." If it says that, the patient obviously knows what the affected area is. You do not need to clarify those instructions. The patient has only one "affected area," so it is as precise as it needs to be.

Granted, she should not have called you stupid, but I would be annoyed as well because of your needless bureaucracy. She was not stupid, just not an expert in medical paperwork. NEEDLESS medical paperwork, by the way. Any reasonable person could have figured out that the affected area is the ONLY AFFECTED AREA ON THE GIRL'S BODY!!!

First, Robert is correct that we are responding to a 2009 thread... and yes directed from that cracked.com article, >_<

Despite the name of the blog, the author did not at any point actually label the offending customer as stupid, nor (from the description given) say anything antagonistic to said customer. The worst terms applied in this post were "brat," and "know it all." The worst she DID was seek clarification of perhaps questionable value.

Personally if this was pertaining to my young child, especially if it were something more serious than pink eye, I'd gladly take an extra half-hour of a pharmacist looking into anything questionable.

While not in keeping with the current trend of minimizing bad publicity at the expense of promoting bad customer behavior, the author was not unjustified in telling the customer to leave. Pretty sure responding to an innocuous question and statement with an ad hominem diatribe would get a more... colorful, response from most people.

For the record, the author does tend towards a patronizing tone. Most of the problem persons described in other entries would be more accurately described as irresponsible, ignorant (unless you have no internet access, there is no excuse for not informing yourself at least a little), or simply being an ass.

TL;DR author was right in this case, didn't do/say anything overtly offensive, customer was completely out of line and there are far better examples of condescension in this blog. Holy S**t this is from 2009, why are we posting here?

You sir, are an extreme idiot. Eye drops go in your eyes, even for pink eye. I sincerely hope that you trip over your own feet, and kill all the cats you must have around to fill the void of your loneliness.

i came here from cracked and you were listed as one of the stupid people you try and bash. Im not claiming to be the smartest guy out there, but for her to react this way to a customer after you refuse to fill her prescription out of some misguided know it all bullshit shows you are not very intelligent

Brilliant. Treating someone like a fucktard just because she's an under-age mother. I don't quite get one thing though - maybe it's the difference between US and UK, but over here, when I got to pick up medicine the only thing they check is the patient's name and address. And I've picked up a whole range of pills for my entire family. I guess British pharmacists realise that they essentially work in a service industry, and if they wanted to chime in with their precious knowledge they should have gone to med school.

I always thought eye drops were a diarrhetic. One time I put them in my sister's coffee and she shat her brains out for weeks afterwards. It was pretty funny but then she had to go to the hospital because she got pinkeye from wiping her butt then her eyes and they gave her eyedrops, but she misunderstood the pharmacist's instructions and just swallowed the drops which only made her diarrhea worse. She ended up dying two days later of extreme dehydration.

My local pharmacy recently fired a woman much like you. You are a pharmacist, not a doctor. Customers come to you with prescriptions or specific requests that don't require prescriptions. Don't argue, don't ask why. Just give them what they want and make sure they have the appropriate literature for their medications. I think "Pharmacy Chick" had a good response, though, that is if you were truly concerned about a patient accidentally putting eye drops in her eyes for some sort of fungal infection between her toes. I don't think you were, though. It sounds to me as though you were being persnickity about a medical doctor's phrasing that likely would have made perfect sense to the patient even if not to you.

As I said, and you obviously didn't read or understand, what if the patient is being treated for more than one affected area?

Needless bureaucracy? 106,000 people die of medical mistakes a year in hospitals alone. Without having met the patient, how knowledgeable can you presume they are? More to point, if they're less knowledgeable than you think, do they then "deserve" a medical accident? Unfortunately, the best way to prevent accidents is through procedure.

I'll tell you what: once the patient showed up and showed they were knowledgeable ("she has pinkeye") I would have taken it off hold and given it to her.

That's what should have been done. Until then, presume the patient needs specific, vivid instructions.

The pharmacist claims they're just doing their job and it's part of their job to be clear and thorough. They apparently forgot that another equally important part of their job is to be discreet and understanding and patient with their customers. Complaining about the 'stupid' customer on a blog and kicking them out of the store is pretty tasteless and unprofessional.

It really wasn't the pharmacist's job to interfere. Obviously, the customer knew where the affected area was and if they had a question or needed clarification, they would have asked.

Telling the customer 'this is what the usual dose is, but do what your doctor told you to do' is unnecessary and will just add confusion to the situation.

A simple 'here's your prescription. please check it over and let me know if you have any questions' would have been the most helpful and professional way to have handled the situation.

Oh, and being rude and condescending to a customer is never OK.

This pharmacist needs to re-read their job description, particularly the part about helping people and treating them with respect, dignity and discretion.

Can I please have the 5 minutes of my life back.I have found your blog to be lacking. Instead of bitching about "oh how i hate people... boo hoo." Maybe you should do your menial task, because I have news for you... Your not special and no one give two shit about who you hate. so Meh

Some of the things you've posted are a bit out of line. Seriously, who cares if some old lady doesn't know if the flu is spreading?

However, I've worked at a gas station, and I completely understand what it's like to get frustrated at the ignorance of the common man, especially when you get yelled at and the blame isn't yours. I cannot tell you how many times I was yelled at for gas prices going up or because someone's credit card got declined or because someone couldn't figure out how to pump gas or because they said the wrong pump number, etc.

The difference between you and I? I don't care that they made a stupid mistake, I get upset because they decided to scream at me about something that had nothing to do with me in the first place. Sure, you're job can be stressful, but I bet money that a gas station attendant (or fast food worker) deals with more customers in 1 hour than you do in a day. I also bet that you're one of those people that would come into my station and scream at me because you didn't press "unleaded" or "premium" when asked what type of fuel you'd like. Why do I assume that? Because you're the type of person that assumes you're always right and always further educated than the people you're dealing with.

You are lucky you are a pharmacist. Not only do you not speak in writing in a way that would suggest you have the higher education required for the job you hold, but you are extremely arrogant bordering on egomania. This entire blog is one accidental name drop from a HIPAA violation and you in court defending your own stupidity for writing a blog about the stupid people you deal with every day.

For all anyone really knows you are actually a pharm tech parading as a pharmacist to keep up pretenses. You sure do write like a teenager who knows more than everyone else.

You had no right or business to send a fax back to the doctor asking for clarification, nor do you have the right to ask the patient what the medication will be used for. You are not a doctor and the woman in question, regardless of her age, was well within her right to call you out and you are lucky you still have a job. Your job is to fill prescriptions and/or verify them, that's it, and you don't get to extend yourself to get more information. If you needed to know what it was for it would be on the prescription, it's why you are trained to read crazy 'script shorthand. I sincerely hope the young lady files a complaint with your corporate office so you can be put in your place.

Pretty sure this blog is making fun of itself 90% of the time and you are the only one not in on the joke. Grow up because every pharmacist I have ever known wouldn't be caught dead running a blog like this. This must be your glass house though because you wouldn't want to throw stones in a real one.

I found your blog via the article in Cracked as well. Congrats on your newfound fame. :)

After perusing your rants about customers asking legitimate questions, I was tempted to suggest that you consider another career. However, every job involves dealing with people in some way or another, so perhaps a therapist could help you with your hostility issues.

It may be a 2009 article, but it is still on the front page. Hard to get mad at people for commenting on a post on the first page of your blog. Even without the Cracked post, most people coming to this blog would be inclined to respond to this post.

And, for the record, I still don't see anything vague about the phrase "affected area." The customer knows what the prescription was written for because they were at the doctor, describing the problem, and getting the prescription.

I've roomed with two pharmacists in the past, both of which had better customer relation skills than this person, and neither of which ever told me any kind of personal stories. G.A. Nolen's right, you're towing a fine line with HIPAA in this blog. I suggest taking it down before someone figures out the identity of your clients, and now that Cracked.com has shared your blog with its community, I wouldn't be surprised if a randomly vindictive soul decided to do just that.

@ Anfisa:

From what I can tell by your description, there is no difference in the way UK/US pharmacies interact with customers. The thing that gets me about this post is that pharmacies don't have to know exactly what the prescription is for. I'm currently being prescribed alprazolam (Xanax) for depression, an off label use whose dosage is different than if I used it for the FDA approved panic disorder. It can also be used for pregnancy. Now, the thing is, I know exactly what the doctor faxed to the pharmacy because he's a good, family friend and did it from my own fax machine. He never once indicated what it was being used for, and the pharmacy never asked. The dosing instructions never once said "to treat depression" nor did it say "for the management of panic disorder" or any of the number of other uses that Xanax can be used for.

Pharmacists do not need to know more information than the doctor has given them. That is part of doctor/patient relationships. If the woman had a toe infection, she might not want anyone to know about her toe infection. Perhaps my Xanax was being prescribed to prevent nausea? All a pharmacy has to do is tack on a sheet of paper that explains that "XMEDX is typically prescribed for the treatment of XPROBX, but may be prescribed for other uses as indicated by your doctor" or some similar dribble.

Perhaps this situation was at a small mom-and-pop pharmacy where they couldn't do something along those lines. That would make a little more sense, but even when I used a small mom-and-pop pharmacy, the only time I ever had any interaction with the pharmacist on duty was when my insurance wouldn't cover a medication, I specifically asked for an alternative way to administer the medication or asking for their suggestion of over-the-counter medication for something I didn't want to go to the doctor for, a situation which pharmacists have been trained in pharmacy school to handle. Diagnosing and prescribing, however, has never been the job of a pharmacist. Yes, a pharmacist could be sued, but it sounds like they would come out in the clear and the legal bills would fall on the prosecution.

I'm sorry but if you're in the healthcare field (see the "care" part on that?) you no longer have the right to be a dick, especially to clients. You're supposed to be a professional. You knew you were going to have to work with people when you signed up and you damn sure knew they would be coming to you for help. Also I'm pretty sure sharing client stories will get you in trouble with various healthcare and governmental agencies. If confidentiality is breached you'll lose your job and face a whole assload of fines.

I will say that the pharmicist did need to know the ROUTE in which the drug was to be delivered. They do not, however, need to know the purpose for the drug's administration but without the route the pharmacist should not dispense the drugs. So she was in the right to fax the doctor back asking for which eye the drug is used for, etc. but not so much in the right to blog about clients.

Yes, I am here from Cracked. It sounds mostly like you were in the wrong on terms of what you were suppose to do. The only time my mother has had to clarify a prescription (I'm still a minor) is when I was prescribed OxyContin after a big cyst and second uterus removal. I don't condone the lady for being rude to you, but whenever I go to the doctor and receive a prescription, they clearly tell me what to use it for and how to use it (if it needs to be explained). Both of you acted pretty 'stupid' in this situation. And who cares if her daughter is the one who needs the drops and the girl who MIGHT be the woman's daughter is rude, writing that in this complaint just sounds like petty gossip and has nothing to do with anything.

Also, you shouldn't have told her to leave. That was incredibly un-professional and could have gotten you fired. People tend to go to whatever pharmacy is closest. Unless someone is being a public nuisance, it's usually not 'policy' to kick them out.

Let's see...<looks at the pharmacy instructions on the box of daughter's half-used vial of Zymar (for pink-eye). "Administer 2 drops to the affected area 3 times daily."

I clearly don't remember ever being told by my pharmacist that I had to wait until they received clarification for which area is affected. I understand the customer was childish, but you are NOT their primary care physician and you do NOT have the right to question a doctor's prescription UNLESS you suspect it to be fraudulent. If this was some kid with a script for a controlled narcotic used to treat severely distressed patients and he's at the counter tap-dancing without a care in the world, then yes, I would expect some due diligence. But this is eye drops USUALLY used for the treatment of pink eye. Does it have other uses? Yes. Is that any of your business? Hell no! You want to be a doctor? Go to med school. Otherwise accept your lot in life and fill the flipping prescription and go about your day.

Oh, and I would seriously reconsider this blog...pretty sure this is a borderline HIPPA violation.

FYI? Your "disclaimer" is a joke. HIPAA laws are in place for a reason. I hope one of the people who you blogged about recognizes themselves and sues your pretentious ass. As a Health Care Professional, I'm appalled by your lack of professionalism, common sense, and human decency. Not to mention your lack of grammar skills. That is all.

Yeah, I don't get why you didn't fill the prescription and then verify with the customer that she had an eye infection and that was indeed the affected area. Also, you are automatically emancipated if you are a minor and have a child. The reason for that is the fact that you are now a parent and responsible for making decisions on behalf of a child. People like you make it difficult.

It IS PC and socially acceptable to just hold out for the Dr.'s actual instructions. At the same time, there is certainly no PC nor SA reason to decry the intelligence of the patient by the pharmacist, not even the PharmA. Here's a tongue-in-cheek, be it direct, article that is for those who assume they are more educated than anyone around them. Specifically, read reason #1 at the end of the article.

I'm sure the person could tell whether it was their eye or their foot that needed to be treated, and that the doctor gave directions. While my sister is a pharmacist and often gets awkward customers that are justifiably complained about, in this case it just sounded like you were being a bitch. Be nice, man. It costs nothing. Had I been the customer I'd have called your manager. If the patient said it was for pinkeye then you should have just said alrighty.

I'm tagging along here with the straight-from-Cracked crowd and would just like to say that I agree with pretty much everyone who's shouted you down. I'm sorry. Just fill the prescription (if you're not in jail and somehow you're still working with that pharmacy) like you're supposed to.

So in your great wisdom and desire to protect others from their obvious obliviousness, you felt it necessary to deprive a little girl of her pink eye medication because her mother offended you? Do you really find yourself to be so intellectually superior? The medicine comes with the directions "Apply to affected area 4 times a day" correct? Well surely the customer went to their doctor and asked for medicine to treat a specific ailment, in other words anyone attempting to use those drops would never mistakenly apply them to their eye if their toe was what they went to the doctor for, and vice-versa no one would apply the drops to their toe if they asked their doctor to treat their pink eye. You are just another know it all catamite, bound and determined to save the rest of us idiots from our own stupidity. FUCK YOU. GOOD JOB LEAVING A BABY WITH PINK EYE TWATICUS MAXIMUS.

Goddamn, for someone who is sick of stupid people, you're pretty fucking thick yourself. You said it yourself: the doctor wasn't a podiatrist and the patient said it was for an eye infection. So please, explain to me how it could have possibly been for an ingrown toe. is there the possibility that she was lying? Sure. But even then, if they were, the prescription says to apply to the affected area. Are you very honestly suggesting that the patient will acknowledge where the affected area is, and then apply it to a completely different area? If they'd do that, then it doesn't matter what the doctor says, because they aren't going to do it. But of course, you're obviously too stupid to reason with.

But what's even more disgusting is that you refused to give a child the medication that they need, on the grounds that the mother was rude to you. Are you fucking twelve? On behalf of the entire human race, I kindly ask that you do not ever breed, because society doesn't need more shitheads, let alone your spawn.

This has to be the most ironic blog post in human history. You just boasted your own stupidity on a blog dedicated to hating on stupid people. The saddest part of all of this is that you actually reasoned out that the instructions were clear, in this situation, and then you SENT IT BACK ANYWAYS. That lady had every right to call you an idiot, because 1) you are, and 2) YOU DIDN'T GIVE HER THE MEDICINE HER CHILD NEEDED.

The 7 drops could be for either disease. Also the chemicals for toenails are probably in a different box. the eye drops and nail medicine would never share a box. Besides the doctor doesn't do anything with nail things, so sending it back wouldn't do anything other then annoy the doctor.

well, she pretty much ruined her life by getting pregnant so young, and now she obviously doesn't take care of the baby that well...geez, I had a point when I started this post, but I lost it...oh! yeah, sice her life sucks she had one big chance to act smarter than somebody when the eye drops thing came up...of course, that will probably be the only time she can act superior. On the other hand, you're not a doctor, and delaying things while you ascertain a meaningless detail doesn't make you one.

wow. You were the one acting like the know-it-all, looking down on the "unmarried mother" who MUST be stupid, right? Your true colors came out. Too bad, I liked this blog for about ten minutes. You're just a know-nothing who thinks they're a doctor now because they can type a label. hahaha

As a fellow RPh I understand your legal duties, etc and perhaps state laws are more stringent where you practice but I hope your duty to the patient would take precedence in this instance. There are some huge logical leaps you took and given the patient provided you the indication (apparently with a pink-eyed baby in hand) that you'd dispense the medication. What court of law or board of pharmacy would possibly find you at fault in this situation?

False. They are in the same box. It's not like they would take a generic medication and market /label it differently for every use. I've been prescribed said eyedrops for my ear and they still said eyedrops... But hey, great input. It's wonderful to hear people jumping on the bandwagon with zero knowledge of what they are talking about.

False. They are in the same box. It's not like they would take a generic medication and market /label it differently for every use. I've been prescribed said eyedrops for my ear and they still said eyedrops... But hey, great input. It's wonderful to hear people jumping on the bandwagon with zero knowledge of what they are talking about.

About Me

Disclaimer

The vast majority of names, ages, genders, and descriptions of people blogged about have been altered to protect their identity. I do take HIPAA laws seriously.If you should happen to recognize yourself in one of my stories, it's because you've done something stupid - just be happy that you're smart enough to recognize it, and promise yourself and others not to do anything to become a subject of my blog again...